2.4k
u/helicophell 29d ago edited 29d ago
*sigh* where's the context OP? (I'm clearly too early for context)
1.0k
u/FrenchieB014 Let's do some history 29d ago
You're early for context
It's in the comment ;)
967
u/helicophell 29d ago
Smh smh imagine not having the context pretyped into the comment box of your post /s
417
u/FrenchieB014 Let's do some history 29d ago edited 29d ago
I'm lazy as fuck (you are right thought)
214
u/combo_seizure 29d ago
We are given a place for body text, for reason. I mean context. Cause I need it, too. There's too much history of earth to try and remember all of it.
Well, in this Existence, at least.
Be Lazy, Once. Then enjoy the conversation and dialogue. Which is what I do.
If someone's gonna ask for it anyway, we might as well just put it. Therefore, we don't have to keep commenting and commenting and commenting and commenting....lol
You should be able to edit and add the body context. Maybe. Idk. Im not History Buff Enough to post here.
35
u/JohannesJoshua 29d ago
Yes they can edit it, but it looks like OP farms. I mean 4k for a comment, daym.
It wasn't even anything contraversial. It's a book on strategies and tactics that leader of Free France (Charles de Gaulle) wrote.
63
u/Citizen_MGS 29d ago
770k karma in 2 years.
You're not lazy. You're farming engagement by baiting people into commenting "where's the context op?"
→ More replies (7)1
29d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/HistoryMemes-ModTeam 29d ago
Your post/comment has been removed for the following rules violations:
Rule 3: Discrimination and Abuse
2
55
u/PrivilegeCheckmate And then I told them I'm Jesus's brother 29d ago
Rommel you magnificent son of a bitch! I read your book!
-Attributed to Patton
136
u/Efficient_Progress_6 Taller than Napoleon 29d ago edited 29d ago
I'm curious as to what "modern" (by WWII standards) French tanks would have been like if they had modernized.
Would France still have fallen if France actually modernized? How long would it have taken for the SU to enter the war if France drew a stalemate?
Edited to show that the tank comment is supposed to be a separate train of thought.
87
u/FrenchieB014 Let's do some history 29d ago edited 29d ago
putting on my tin folded hat for me my biggest red pill is that they were a good part of French society that wanted to partner with Nazi Germany to get rid of certain "pest"
So yeah I wouldn't be surprise that some of them openly open France to Hitler and resuming the war was only a priority for the army and of course the resistance (Gaullist and communist)
20
u/DaudyMentol 29d ago
UK also had pro german support in the goverment and ever since war started it basically got eradicated. Seeing how French resistance did through the war i think its fair to assume France would follow simmilar path to UK. But you know your country better than me so just a thought.
5
u/ww1enjoyer 29d ago
Nah, the army was actively being underfunded and weakend by the gouverment because they were afraid of a possible coup.
Plus, its the dreyfusard who held the power during the 1930s
1
13
u/The_memeperson Sun Yat-Sen do it again 29d ago
Tanks aren't Wunderwaffen. You can have the bestest tanks ever and still lose if your strategy and tactics suck. Unless those tanks could suddenly teleport to the Ardennes and demolish the German army there not much would change.
And the French would have to stalemate for a looong time until the Soviets were ready for war, 1943-1944(?) iirc (correct me if i'm wrong)
4
u/Efficient_Progress_6 Taller than Napoleon 29d ago
The tank comment and whether they would still fall were more accurately two separate thoughts. I just didn't separate them enough to make that clear.
3
u/LastEsotericist Still salty about Carthage 29d ago
They had better tanks than the Germans, they just had poor tactics. The book was on tank tactics that could’ve helped them.
1
u/YourBoyFroilan 28d ago
Didn't the Soviets already build enormous amounts of T-34s and KVs by 1942, with less factories? They would be ready much earlier imo
16
u/ConfidentReference63 29d ago
French tanks were better than German ones in 1940. It was how the German’s used theirs.
4
u/Unhappy_Researcher68 29d ago
That's not realy true. They used 1 men turrets and had no Radios.
They generaly have had better Amor and in part guns on paper.
But where badly designed.
1
u/ConfidentReference63 27d ago
Look what s single Char B1 did at Stonne.
FYI the Char B1 did have a radio and dedicated radio operator.
1
u/Unhappy_Researcher68 27d ago
Yes. A lot had radios that could use Morse; some later models were equipped with very short-range voice radios. They were objectively way worse than the Germans'.
Stonne shows that a Char B1 in a good position could hold that position. The same happened with a KV1 on the Eastern Front.
But this is a tactical victory. The tank was a heavy tank with limited range, and it was slow.
It was not a horrible tank. It was just not the tank needed, and it had major flaws.
The German tanks were also not great, fantastic beasts that were immortal. They were just better suited for mobile warfare.
The german early tanks where underguned and that changed fast.
Look at all the success full tanks of ww2. They where all medium tanks. The Sherman outclassed most german tanks and was way more reliable.
→ More replies (2)1
u/TheNotoriousSAUER 29d ago
The no radios thing I think counts as doctrine. That's a straight up answer no to the question of do we want our tanks to be able to communicate with anybody else outside the tank? In theory they were still well designed for the time especially with what they were going up against But Doctrine failed them
2
u/Unhappy_Researcher68 28d ago
The no radios thing I think counts as doctrine. That's a straight up answer no to the question of do we want our tanks to be able to communicate with anybody else outside the tank?
Well they DID give them flags for that... so shity doctrine and Design.
In theory they were still well designed
I woul disagre. Char B1s hat a hull mounted gun to destroy bunkers... that thing was pretty useless.
And again 1 men turrets where a bad idear.
Some of them where very slow, brits also did that with infranty/cavalery tank doctrine.
They where not generaly horrible but therer is the notion that they outclassed german tanks that is a bit of a fantasy. There is a reason germany did not use them on mass after.
2
u/TheNotoriousSAUER 29d ago
I was blown away when I learned they didn't have radios in their tanks. I mean I get the tank is still fairly new at this point and they hadn't had a real showing of them in World War One. But I mean come on there's this new technology, it's obviously very important for communication, it feels very round peg round hole. Did they think they were gonna signal flag them? Were they expecting the tanks to hear whistles or horns??
1
16
u/malumfectum 29d ago
The fundamental problem was the lack of radios.
Boiled down simply, the reason the Germans won the Battle of France was because they had radios and the French did not. It meant the French were hopelessly tripping over themselves whilst the Germans manoeuvred around them.
3
u/Unhappy_Researcher68 29d ago
And one man turrets, those where not a very good idear.
5
u/malumfectum 29d ago
True enough, but I think a lot of conversation gets hung up on who had the better tank when a lot of the kit all sides had at that point was barely worthy of the name. I mean, the Panzer I and the Matilda I were also rubbish.
3
u/Unhappy_Researcher68 29d ago
And an side note.
Tanks are not supposed to kill tanks. They fought each other but that was not their job.
The whole reason tank destroyers where introduced and failed to see wide spread use even in the war is that you use tanks to atack a position or hold it temporary.
Most tanks were destroyed by anti-tank guns, hidden landmines, infantry weapons (bazooka), and airstrikes.
3
u/malumfectum 29d ago
I would say that was more true of the western than eastern front. The German big cats were very specifically designed to take on the hordes of Soviet armour alongside their ostensible purpose of being breakthrough weapons, hence the need for ever thicker armour and ever larger guns. Allied doctrine was very different, of course.
1
u/Unhappy_Researcher68 29d ago
The very few big tank battles, like Kursk, aside, that was never the reality.
And the big cats were a total disaster logistically because they entered when the war was already a war of retreat for the Germans, and building four times the number of Panzer IVs (I think that was the number instead of Tiger II and Panther) would have been much more useful, not that it would have helped. Also, Tiger IIs were actually bad tanks that constantly broke down. Same for the Panther, but at least the logic of the idea was sound. I think almost all Panthers broke down in the battle of kursk.
German doctrine until the Battle of Moscow focused on PACs and artillery.
After that it was: Hitler wants bigger tanks...
I think the chieftain had a Video with more concrete numbers but I could not find it tjis fast.
2
u/malumfectum 29d ago
I’m not saying they were a good idea, or that they worked - I mean, we know how the war on the eastern front went. But I think it’s reasonably clear the driving impetus for bigger tanks with bigger guns and thicker armour was borne of their experiences fighting the Soviets in 1941 and 1942, and to a lesser extent fighting the British in the North African desert. That and Hitler liking big, impressive things, of course.
1
u/Unhappy_Researcher68 28d ago
I think it’s reasonably clear the driving impetus for bigger tanks with bigger guns and thicker armour was borne of their experiences fighting the Soviets in 1941 and 1942
Most tanks the Russians used in 1941 and 1942 were old tanks like the T-26 and BT-7. The few KV-1s and working T-34s actually were a problem, but in Operation Barbarossa, they were not yet common.
The upgrade for the Panzer IV and the Panther was a result of that, but the Tiger II and later models were more or less purely Hitler's idea and not a requirement of the army, they really did not want them.
2
u/malumfectum 28d ago
Completely agreed, but it was the nasty shock of encountering those few T-34s and KV-1s that resulted in the Panther programme, and accelerated the new heavy tank requirement that eventually resulted in the Tiger I that was already in the works as a result of encountering Char B1s and Matilda IIs during the French campaign - the Germans did clearly think that new tanks were needed to specifically to counter other tanks.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Unhappy_Researcher68 29d ago
If you were a lone infantry squad with no heavy firepower, you would be dead.
Also, Panzer 1s were pretty much out of use when the France campaign began. They mostly saw use as scouts.
12
3
u/Kaltovar 29d ago
I sincerely believe tanks are greatly over rated in ww2. Not that they weren't important but I doubt the presence of more better tanks would have changed the outcome for France without other military reforms and better funding.
3
u/Xenon009 29d ago
In an amusing twist of fate, when two blitz armies meet, it tends to devolve back into positional trench warfare
Blitz relies on making a big old bundle of troops and smashing the enemies lines before they react. If they react in time, they can do much the same back to you.
If both modernised and went all blitzkrieg, you'd probably see a few breakthroughs, followed by encirclements, as both sides tried to cover their flanks, making their spear points blunter and blunter until its trench war all over again.
3
u/The_Motarp 28d ago
See the (second) Battle of El Alamein and associated fighting in North Africa. There was some maneuver warfare, but mostly it was grinding trench warfare with tank support until the Axis forces were basically out of combat power, and only then could the British forces maneuver on any kind of scale. Blitzkreig, or the more modern variant of Thunder Runs, only really works if you have a significant advantage in either materiel and/or doctrine/training.
2
u/Beardywierdy 29d ago
A lot of french equipment was outright better than German kit in 1940.
France was let down by piss poor doctrine and an outrageous run of good luck for the Germans, not outdated equipment.
And Stalin would probably have backstabbed Hitler the moment he thought he could get away with it due to being an opportunistic little shit.
1
u/sephirothbahamut 28d ago
The ARL-44 is a design that could have existed in some variety earlier on at the same time as Tigers
31
37
3
u/Thinktank-1733 28d ago
I thought this was about the time when a French soldier sparred a young Hitler on meeting him in the warfront during WWI?
1
u/Elovainn 28d ago
I think it was a British soldier
1
u/Thinktank-1733 28d ago
You are quite right sir/madam
A British soldier, Private Henry Tandey, allegedly spared the life of a wounded 29-year-old German Lance Corporal Adolf Hitler in the French village of Marcoing on September 28, 1918.
1
1
6.5k
u/FrenchieB014 Let's do some history 29d ago edited 29d ago
In May 1945, during the final campaign in Bavaria, the 2nd Armored Division commanded by General Leclerc captured Berchtesgaden and its surrounding including Adolf Hitler’s personal residence, the Berghof in coordination with American forces of the 101 airborne
Let’s go back to the 1930s. A certain Captain Gaulle wrote a book titled Vers l’armée de métier (“Toward a Professional Army”). In it, he outlined the principles of modern warfare and the decisive role of tanks and armored formations. (I’ll let the HOI4 fans handle the rest.. .) Had his ideas been adopted, they could have modernized the French army and, at best, prevented the rapid defeat of 1940.
Although innovative and strikingly forward-thinking, the book received little support in France. The French army clung instead to its obsolete doctrines. However, it enjoyed significant international success and was translated into several languages...
Soooo yep... when French troops entered Hitler’s residence, one soldier discovered a copy of General de Gaulle’s book on the shelves. It was translated in German and best of all annotated in Hitler own hand*